Response from Cari Field on 1/30/2025

I’m sorry to hear about your concerns, and I’d like to set the record straight with the facts. You have my email if you would like me to send you the proof to back up my responses to your claims. My goal is always to ensure transparency and professionalism in every transaction, and I’d like to provide some factual context to address your misunderstandings / Agent's misrepresentation - Leaseback Agreement: The leaseback terms were not changed or altered at any point. The Rental Leaseback Agreement (RLAS) was included with our counteroffer for the purchase of your home on October 4th—before our offer was accepted. This was done specifically to give both you and your agent, Nate Poznick, the opportunity to review all of the RLAS's terms, raise any concerns, and counter if needed. At no time was this agreement modified after being sent and signed by all parties which you signed on October 5th, making it a binding agreement that was provided to Escrow by your Agent. That is the document that Escrow is required by law to follow and that they did that. There were no new rental agreements drawn up near close to escrow, it was just the first time your Agent and you read the contract you had already signed. Although Nate had not specifically requested the RLAS, I included with our counter offer to ensure you had full visibility of all of the terms in it and the chance to make any changes to it and that you/Nate could make those changes prior to accepting my client’s offer and the rental terms offered. $7,000 Charge: The $7,000 charge was not due to any changes in the agreement. As outlined in the RLAS that was sent with our counter offer and that you signed, $7,000 represents half of my clients PITI, with the total cost remaining the same—one full month of PITI covering two months of rent-back. Both you and Nate had the opportunity to review and to counter these terms before signing the RLAS. Nate later acknowledged that he had not reviewed the leaseback agreement that was sent with the counter. As a result, Nate accepted responsibility and covered the cost of your 30 day rent back / half of PITI from his commission, as you are aware. Inspection Duration: From the outset, I communicated to Nate that the inspection would take longer than three hours and send him the schedule of arrival times not completion times. Nate should be more than aware how long inspections take which he should have informed you of. The schedule I provided to him showed staggered arrival times over three hours to accommodate back-to-back inspections, aiming to minimize disruption and complete nearly all inspections in a single day with a very short inspection contingency period. While I understand this may have been inconvenient, thorough inspections are necessary and are required to be allowed by the Seller per the RPA. My intention was never to intrude on your time or delay your plans. Like you, I was surprised that Nate had not communicated the expected duration to you in advance and that you arrived back in the middle of inspections. I did not want you to be stressed out that you had people coming over for drinks and inspectors in the home nor my client and inspectors to be stressed and rushing. Inspectors do not return for follow-ups and are very busy, so they provide their summary immediately after the inspection, which we expedited before leaving as quickly as possible and even rearranged the completion of to accommodate you. Professional Conduct: At no point did I say that you needed to "learn a lesson." What I did emphasize to Nate Poznick—who is a newer agent and had been soliciting my advice on real estate throughout the transaction—was the importance of him carefully reviewing all documents for you/his clients, especially before clients sign them. This is a fundamental responsibility in real estate to ensure clarity and prevent misunderstandings. When Nate attempted to place blame on me, I forwarded him the original email where I had not only included the RLAS but also explicitly pointed out the change from what had been previously discussed over the phone due to the RLAS form not allowing for it. Nate acknowledged that he had not reviewed the email or the RLAS in detail after he received the re-sent email, which is what led to the entire misunderstanding that did not need to happen. It is the responsibility of agents to thoroughly review documents and ensure their clients do the same before signing. I understand that real estate transactions can be complex, and miscommunications can happen. I go over the top to make sure there are no misunderstandings to make sure the deal is as smooth and as los stress as possible for all parties. That is why I included the RLAS for review prior to acceptance even when it was not requested by Nate so there was no confusion. I hope this explanation helps clarify the facts and addresses any concerns you may have. But I am available to talk to you and Nate and provide dated documentat